Leaders we don't want.

I don't like Cleopatra for the same reasons above. She makes it in usually because of the need for more female leaders. Hatshepsut should replace here and Ramesses II would be a good second leader.

Click to expand...

Agree. Cleo is silly. Ptolemy would be equally silly. But if they want a great leader who's female, just use Hatshepsut again. I actually like her, she's one of a few leaders that can be competitive without being a jerk.

Victoria and Catherine I understand. Wu Zhou did enough I get why you get put her in, even if she's not my first choice. Hatshepsut I WOULD understand. These are female leaders that are great and have intrinsic merit for their accomplishments beyond being women.

But Cleopatra just did not do anything, really. It's sort of like Boudica. Boudica was raped by the Romans and led a rebellion that took a year to crush. Big whoop. Cleopatra managed to seduce Caesar into helping her and Antony into giving Egypt preferential vassal status. Sorry, but I'm just not that impressed.

seasnake said:

But Cleopatra just did not do anything, really. It's sort of like Boudica. Boudica was raped by the Romans and led a rebellion that took a year to crush. Big whoop.

Click to expand...

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.

ko3ak said:

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.

Click to expand...

Vercingetorix would like a word with you.

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.

Its these legends that make them part of the game.

People who would not be in the game would be like adding current(as in present day) leaders, or past leaders who are not too far removed from power IE: Obama or Reagan.

Perfxion said:

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.

Its these legends that make them part of the game.

People who would not be in the game would be like adding current(as in present day) leaders, or past leaders who are not too far removed from power IE: Obama or Reagan.

Click to expand...

Actually, Hannibal lead Carthage during the Punic Wars, when Rome was usurping Carthage in terms of Mediterranean power - Hannibal beating Rome was the expected conclusion. However, they counter-invaded North Africa so he was forced to return home, where he lost. Hannibal's only as famous as he is because LATER it would become impossible to stand up to Rome - when he did it, it was just another war, not a war against goddamn Rome. His defeat was the birth of Roman military supremacy, so your phrasing is inaccurate. He won a battle against the Roman army when nobody had any real expectations of the Roman army - they defeated him, and people were like "wow, that Rome is lookin' pretty crazy, rite?"

A better analogy for the Punic Wars than US-Cuba would be US-England - the passing of power from one behemoth to another. Sure, the English won a few battles in the beginning, but the US ended up winning the war, and afterwards became a superpower (though the time frame is different than the post-Punic wars - the US really only came into its own in the twentieth century). When you put Hannibal in the position of revolutionary war England, he doesn't look as impressive - but that's because revolutionary war England didn't march a horde of damn elephants over the alps. I mean, damn.

war ensemble said:

I'm sorry, but I can't buy this argument. What leaders allowed the US to become a great nation? Washington helped unite the nation, and his democratic ideals are still highly influential today. He formed the first government--if he agreed to a lifelong term as some hoped in his day things would be very different in America.

Lincoln's America is incredibly important for uniting the nation. FDR might have been ruling over the North United States if it wasn't for him.

Click to expand...

Listen, Washington was just a highly replaceable commander of some creole rebels. If Washington's mother had died in childhood, everything would have been more or less the same. The rebels would have rebelled, they would have appointed an experienced commander as chief, they would have won, and the ideology common to Englishmen in America and Britain would have been used to "form" the "new nation". That's boring, I know, but it's the way of it. Fact is, neither Washington's America nor even Lincoln's mattered to the world. FDR's America and Eisenhower's did.

If you're gonna go down the chaos theory route, you might as well make Columbus' great-grandfather leader!

CornPlanter said:

Well, in my opinion that makes him even more worthy. He waged war against UK, the top world's power at the time - and he won. I believe we should judge leaders by their own achievements, not by status of their country at their times. Just my opinion

Click to expand...

What's the difference? If you're the head of a nation 16 years after a baby-boom, should you get the credit for the increased power of your nation?

Arakhor said:

I despise recentism with a passion.

Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

ko3ak said:

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but only if you both subscribe to Firaxis' inexplicable belief that "Celt" refers exclusive to the pre-Roman Celtic peoples, thereby writing off an additional two thousand-odd years of Celtic history and a plethora of eminently wealthy candidates.

calgacus said:

Listen, Washington was just a highly replaceable commander of some creole rebels. If Washington's mother had died in childhood, everything would have been more or less the same. The rebels would have rebelled, they would have appointed an experienced commander as chief, they would have won, and the ideology common to Englishmen in America and Britain would have been used to "form" the "new nation". That's boring, I know, but it's the way of it. Fact is, neither Washington's America nor even Lincoln's mattered to the world. FDR's America and Eisenhower's did.

If you're gonna go down the chaos theory route, you might as well make Columbus' great-grandfather leader!



What's the difference? If you're the head of a nation 16 years after a baby-boom, should you get the credit for the increased power of your nation?

Click to expand...

you must be out of you god damned mind. With that kind of thinking The Mongols would have been the same without Genghis, the Chinese would have been the same without Qin Shi Huang. Maybe you should learn something about Washington before making a bunch of claims and ramblings about something you don't know anything about. The fact is the British should have won that war within one month. They were the most powerful Empire in the world at that time, don't forget that. Washington took a bunch of peasant farmers and whipped them into a force that could stand up to any army on earth in a matter of many months. There were other generals that tried to replace Washington. There were times where Horatio Gates along with the governor of Pennsylvania campaigned to get Washington removed. Shortly before this happened, Washington won a surprise attack vs Hessian mercenaries on Christmas day after marching through a blizzard overnight to turn the tide of the war. Thats just one of hundreds of things I could mention. He was one of the 3 greatest military leaders ever, doing more with less, really than anybody ever. You need to get your facts straight.

Though in my opinion Americans give Washington way too much credit - way too much, it's understandable since he is a semi-mythologized founding father figure. He wasn't the best general ever, or even close, but he must have done something right. He was pretty lucky many times (I've heard how bullets always missed him), but he can't be a complete dumbass, otherwise he would have been out of the picture pretty quickly.

Even though I'd rather have someone like Teddy Rossevelt, I think it's okay to have Washington as a leader, since he is so symbolic and iconic for America. If I am correct, in the world market, he is probably the most easily recognized historical president (i.e. not one from the last few decades).

Shiggs713 said:

you must be out of you god damned mind. With that kind of thinking The Mongols would have been the same without Genghis, the Chinese would have been the same without Qin Shi Huang. Maybe you should learn something about Washington before making a bunch of claims and ramblings about something you don't know anything about. The fact is the British should have won that war within one month. They were the most powerful Empire in the world at that time, don't forget that. Washington took a bunch of peasant farmers and whipped them into a force that could stand up to any army on earth in a matter of many months. There were other generals that tried to replace Washington. There were times where Horatio Gates along with the governor of Pennsylvania campaigned to get Washington removed. Shortly before this happened, Washington won a surprise attack vs Hessian mercenaries on Christmas day after marching through a blizzard overnight to turn the tide of the war. Thats just one of hundreds of things I could mention. He was one of the 3 greatest military leaders ever, doing more with less, really than anybody ever. You need to get your facts straight.

Click to expand...

Basically, because I look at things historically and haven't been brain-washed with a nationalist cult of personality at high school, I'm ignorant? Awesome!

Seriously, personality had little to do with it, and generally has little to do with such things. There is not as much scope for the "role of genius" as the common man is brought up to believe. The English creoles would have been victorious anyway, just as all the Spanish creoles were a few years later. GW was one of dozens of experienced commanders; he was just the one who knew the right people and got to the top, and you worship him because he got to the top at the right time ... in time to claim the victories that would get him included in a nationalist origin narrative like the one you've just recited to me.

cybrxkhan said:

Though in my opinion Americans give Washington way too much credit - way too much, it's understandable since he is a semi-mythologized founding father figure. He wasn't the best general ever, or even close, but he must have done something right. He was pretty lucky many times (I've heard how bullets always missed him), but he can't be a complete dumbass, otherwise he would have been out of the picture pretty quickly.

Even though I'd rather have someone like Teddy Rossevelt, I think it's okay to have Washington as a leader, since he is so symbolic and iconic for America. If I am correct, in the world market, he is probably the most easily recognized historical president (i.e. not one from the last few decades).

Click to expand...

Washington was one of the most successful commanders of his day, and a decent leader. That though doesn't make him a great candidate for a Civ4 leader. The US under Washington is not a great power. It was something like what Argentina is now. The US under FDR and his successors is a superpower. It stands to reason a leader should come from the latter time rather than the former (individual merits of leaders aside) ... though is just my view.

Still holding out for ahistorical leaders. For sure, Firaxis can use all of the time they have sunk into full motion renders of the official leaders for AI players, but the human should be able to pick their own name and abilities -- sort of like the "custom race" option in MOO2.

Pipe dream, I know. But a fella can dream, can't he?

The Jappinsse dude, oh how is his name spelled Tokugua, or something. He's to much of an isolist, and won't make friends with the human, and HE APPEARS IN EVERY ONE OF MY GAMES (well, most anyway).

Everyone who knew Washington agreed he was a remarkable man, even those who took the field against him in the Revolutionary and French and Indian Wars. He was able to provide a common, accepted leader for a nation that was bitterly divided in many self-interested colonies. He refused to be called your excellency and stepped down from office after two terms. He fought and won against the British Army, and overwhelming feat of military strategy. He laid the foundation of what would become the United States. He was not replaceable, he was remarkable. Every contemporary source of the times agrees.

Him or Jefferson should be the U.S. leader. FDR was not a bad leader, Teddy was good, I like some others as well but Washington's legacy is and will always be greater.

Okay. Let's get some things straight before I go on a US history rant:
a) The person who I was taught US history (at least, the portion relevant to Washington) by didn't brainwash me with a nationalist cult; in fact, his loyalty was questioned when he started teaching Kent State in the 1970s.
b) The sources that I most use are objective history books published by distinguished historians.

Washington was ESSENTIAL to winning the war. Why? Well, first of all, he was a brilliant military tactician. In the battles of Princeton and Trenton, he outsmarted the British's superior force and beat them soundly. Furthermore, he kept the colonies together, as others have said. Secondly, Horatio Gates, who would have taken over the US army if Washington left, was a horrible General. At Saratoga, he would have lost, save for the fact the Benedict Arnold disobeyed his orders and led the colonial forces to victory. At Camden, Gates was defeated catastrophically by the British forces and didn't stop riding away for 160 miles. Washington was essential to the victory of the United States. And without him, a country that has been a major power for over 100 years would never have come to pass.

Also, the use of creole isn't correct to refer the colonists. Here is a correct definition by the Oxford English Dictionary.
1 a person of mixed European and black descent, esp. in the Caribbean.
• a descendant of Spanish or other European settlers in the Caribbean or Central or South America.
• a white descendant of French settlers in Louisiana and other parts of the southern U.S.
2 a mother tongue formed from the contact of two languages through an earlier pidgin stage : a Portuguese-based Creole.

Eventually British Empire granted independence to all its' major colonies, if I am not mistaken. And USA is located in too sweet location geopolitically to not gain superpower status at some time.

Independence War was basically redundant — spilling of blood for easiness of money earning. There is nothing special neither in war itself, nor in Washington deeds. Sure, he was good tactician and great wartime leader, but was he a good president? I don't believe so.

I like Gilgamesh. Sumeria is very important historically. What would civilization be without Sumeria? Perhaps it's that it was more or less the cradle of civilization that turns you off, and given that Babylon is the better known advanced form of Sumeria?

About women leaders: historically women have been . . . discredited throughout history? As the bumber sticker goes something like "women who behave rarely make history". It's true that Cleopatra is kind of corny, right? My girlfriend was very interested in playing as Cleopatra. I'm just saying sometimes we like to identify with our gender. And so what if Cleopatra was promiscuous?

Honestly, I can't think of any leaders that should be discontinued. They all made history. I'd like to see more leaders. Cao Cao, Muhammad (perhaps not due to PC), Longshanks etc.

Perfxion said:

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.

Click to expand...

Right. What did Montezuma do besides exist when the Spanish arrived? His "revenge"? He absolutely belongs in Civ.

Monty belongs in civ for a total lack of other leaders for the Aztec. Right?